Structure However, through the confusion of the form and the language, we can see a narrative structure (an organised story). A demonstration has got out of hand and riot police have moved in to control it. The rioters start throwing things and there's an explosion (it is possible the nuts and bolts come from the explosion itself – time may also be confused in the poet's head). The poet runs for safety, trying to make sense of what is happening, but cannot escape. The place he knows so well becomes a trap and he runs into a check-point where he is held up and questioned by the police.
The first major argument during the trial which was against the soldiers and was the argument to prosecute them was that the soldiers were corrupt and tormented the prisoners for fun as they had the authority to do so. The second major argument which was the argument for the
is having a problem with poor decision making and failure to take responsibility for his action Reality Theory ( Wrong choices/ Decisions) T.C. have a tendency of making bad choices like skipping school and breaking in people houses and selling drugs Cognitive Theory (Faulty Thinking) T.C. believe the only way he can survive and make money is to steal and sell drugs Reality Theory (Failure to take responsibility for his action) T.C. has problems taking responsibilities for his actions. T.C.
At least in part, many can agree with the lack of a conscious or soul. However, when the concept of responsibility comes into play, I’m not convinced that society is ready to be as understanding. To ask the question regarding whether or not it is morally and ethically appropriate to hold an offender responsible for their crime and punish them if they are neurobiologically impaired or to find different means of responding to their crime will most likely provoke anger and contempt from the victims of these crimes as well as society as a whole. And, I would say rightly so. Our criminal justice system is based on being held responsible for your actions.
Justification and Capacity 10/31/11 CJA 354 Richard S. Stolker When a person commits a crime, he or she tries to give a reason why they had to do it. The reason a person gives is his or her way of justifying the actions. Is there a difference between justification and excuses? How can police officers and judges tell when a person is trying to justify his or her actions or giving excuses? Everyone has the capacity to commit crimes but not everyone has the mental capacity or criminal capacity to understand the crime committed.
The limits of Mens Rea can often be extended by the court as each crime can carry a different degree of culpability depending on the wording of the charge set against the defendant. But ultimately the Mens Rea is a reference to “What the defendant was thinking at the time of the offence” and has no moral component. No matter how worthy, was the action intentional or was it indirectly intentional. That is, did the event occur as an inevitable but unintentional consequence of the primary intention of the defendant? What was the defendant thinking at the time?
Normally when criminal committed the crime must concurrence of both Mens Rea (Intention) and Actus Reus (Action). Sometimes, the proof of causation relating the criminal’s actions is also required in the process of prosecution. Secondly, criminals have some behaviors or act some actions that are not accepted by the public and their basis value and moral are clearly different with others. For example, assault, theft, fraud, rape and even murder etc. These acts are always criminalized by the criminal law.
Champmathieu is arrested for a crime that he did not commit. Despite his innocence he is taken to trial, because someone must be punished. “The counsel established that the theft of the apples was not in fact proved” (Hugo 108). Champmathieu is not only wrongly accused of stealing apples, he is also
The Third Coast Auto Group, LP may have been unintentional but took careless actions that became their responsibility. Third Coast Auto Group also known as TCAG was negligent in keeping their guard dog restrained while work hours putting his employees, and customers and nay other individual at actual harm. In the tort of negligence there are three possible things that need to be proven in order to succeed. VanHouten has to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, secondly that the defendant breaks that duty of care within the standard of care required by law, and finally breach of duty of care results in damages to the plaintiff. In this case of Kelly Kanton Labaj and Third Coast Auto Group, LP VS Deeann VanHouten the defendants were liable for her injuries because they knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous and vicious propensities.
These punishments which are defined by Hammurabi were very strict. For instance ‘If a man has accused a man and has charged him with manslaughter and then has not proved [it against] him, his accuser shall be put to death.’ and ‘If a man has committed robbery and is caught, that man shall be put to death.’ In my point of view this is wrong approach to criminal. Because a man who kill someone and other man who stole something are not the same. However according to Hammurabi’s Law they are punished the same technique. Secondly, Hammurabi’s Law Code draw attention to inequalities in the society.